The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MacNeil: Good evening. I'm Robert MacNeil in New York.

MR. LEHRER: And I'm Jim Lehrer in Washington. After our summary of the news this Friday, Sec. of State Warren Christopher is here for a Newsmaker interview. The analysis team of Shields and Gigot makes its official debut as Paul Gigot of the Wall Street Journal joins Mark Shields tonight and forever more, and Tom Bearden tells the story of a family with an extraordinary health care problem. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. MacNeil: Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon today agreed to resume bilateral negotiations with Israel. The talks broke off after the West Bank mosque massacre three weeks ago. The word came after a United Nations Security Council vote condemning the massacre in Hebron. At least 30 Palestinians were killed in that attack, which was blamed on the Jewish settler. The Council's vote was unanimous. Sec. of State Christopher spoke about the resumption of the negotiations at a Washington news conference.

WARREN CHRISTOPHER, Secretary of State: We believe that these intensive contacts and discussions will move us toward putting the whole peace process back on track. Indeed, it is the expectation that these discussions will lead to early resumption of negotiations to implement the Declaration of Principles. The United States is prepared to assist the parties in these efforts because it is convinced that only through implementation can realities on the ground be changed. Only in that way can Palestinian and Israel security be guaranteed, and only in that way can progress be made toward the lasting peace that we all seek.

MR. MacNeil: The Palestinians have not yet agreed to restart their talks with Israel on limited self-rule in the occupied territories, however, Christopher said the two sides would resume high level contacts to discuss the issue. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: The presidents of Croatia and Muslim Bosnia signed a confederation agreement at the White House today. The treaty links the Muslim-controlled parts of Bosnia to Croatia. Both presidents called for U.S. help in rebuilding Bosnia and easing the suffering of its people. President Clinton said this at the ceremony?

PRESIDENT CLINTON: Around the globe the tension between ethnic identity and statehood presents one of the great problems of our time. But nowhere have the consequences been more tragic than the former Yugoslavia. There, nationalist and religious factions aggravated by Serbian aggression have erupted in a fury of ethnic cleansing and brutal atrocities. The documents signed here are only first steps, but they are clearly steps in the right direction. If they lead to an overall negotiated settlement, if a lasting peace takes hold in this war torn land, the ceremony will be remembered as an important event. Whether that comes to pass will depend less on our words today and on the actions of Muslims, Croats, and Serbs on the ground tomorrow and in the days to come.

MR. LEHRER: We'll talk to Sec. Christopher about Bosnia, the Middle East, and other matters right after this News Summary.

MR. MacNeil: A judicial commission in South Africa today implicated senior police officials in fomenting the country's black political violence. It said the officials armed the Inkatha Freedom Party against their rivals, the African National Congress. Clashes between the two groups have killed at least 11,000 people over the last three years. Mark Austin of Independent Television News reports from Johannesburg.

MARK AUSTIN, ITN: Brandishing their arms, South Africa's Zulu warriors, but as these Inkatha Party supporters step up their resistance to next month's historic elections, dramatic evidence that many of their weapons were supplied by an undercover unit of the South African police, evidence too that police joined Inkatha hit squads in some of South Africa's worst atrocities. The report, released by Mr. Justice Goldstone, spoke of a horrible network of criminal activity.

PRESIDENT F.W. DeKLERK, South Africa: It is, indeed, a very serious matter when some of the top management of a police force are implicated in deeds which obviously militate against the interests of the country.

MR. AUSTIN: This report lends weight to the widespread belief that a so-called third force exists, acting against the ANC to destabilize the townships. The police unit is said to have manufactured weapons and smuggled others across the border from Mozambique. They cleaned them with acid to remove the serial numbers before allegedly handing them to senior officials of Inkatha.

JUDGE RICHARD GOLDSTONE: The impression that I have is that the scale is a serious one in terms of the numbers of people whose lives were lost.

MR. AUSTIN: President DeKlerk angrily rejected suggestions his government had been involved in the activities.

PRESIDENT F.W. DeKLERK: There's no suggestion in this report that we have known about this or that we should have known this or that we have known about this or that we should have known about it. There's no suggestion of negligence on the side of the government.

MR. MacNeil: DeKlerk immediately suspended two top police generals named in the report as well as an unspecified number of lower ranking officers. His party is running in the country's first multiracial elections in April, which the ANC is expected to win. Inkatha has boycotted the campaign and recently threatened war to defend the sovereignty of their homelands.

MR. LEHRER: The space shuttle Columbia returned to Earth this morning at Cape Canaveral, Florida. Its five astronauts spent just short of two weeks in space, the second longest shuttle mission ever. The crew conducted science and technology experiments during their nearly 6 million mile voyage.

MR. MacNeil: That's our summary of the day's top stories. Now it's on to the Secretary of State, political analysis, and extraordinary health care. NEWSMAKER

MR. LEHRER: We begin tonight with Sec. of State Warren Christopher, who is with us now for a Newsmaker interview. Mr. Secretary, welcome.

WARREN CHRISTOPHER, Secretary of State: Good evening, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Two major news events just today to talk about. Let's begin with the resumption of the Middle East peace talks in April. What finally happened? What caused this to turn around?

SEC. CHRISTOPHER: Well, Jim, we've been working on it for the last 10 days very intensively. It was tied, in a sense, to the U.N. resolution. That was an important factor in it. And I think equally important was the diplomacy in this situation. President Clinton called President Assad today of Syria. He called King Hussein, urged them to return to the peace talks. I called Prime Minister Ariri of Lebanon and those followed up really on some calls, things we'll be working on earlier this week. So it came together today. As I say, the U.N. resolution was a major factor as well.

MR. LEHRER: Were there any other factors that we don't know about? In other words, has anything else been said or promised the Arab leaders, in addition to a U.N. resolution?

SEC. CHRISTOPHER: No. I think everyone understands it's very important to get back to the peace talks. It's equally important for the Palestinians and the Israelis to do so, because only if there's progress on the ground, only if we can begin to implement the Declaration of Principles will the people there realize the promise of peace.

MR. LEHRER: Now the PLO still has not said that it will, in fact, resume its peace talks with Israel. Where does that stand tonight?

SEC. CHRISTOPHER: Well, where that stands tonight is that today there was a telephone call between Chairman Arafat and Prime Minister Rabin. I think that sets in motion a number of high level contacts between those two countries. They'll be talking about security in the occupied territories, and I think and hope that will lead to an early resumption of peace talks between the two of them. They both recognize that it's in the implementation of the Declaration of Principles that real hope lies. So I think that this is a very good day for the Middle East peace talks, Jim. The three Arab countries agreeing to come back will give a certain amount of impetus that'll make it easier for the PLO to return.

MR. LEHRER: Why? How would it make it easier?

SEC. CHRISTOPHER: Well, as you know, I think that countries in the Arab world tend to work together. I think Chairman Arafat will be stimulated by the fact that three other country leaders felt able to come back to the peace talks. I think that will encourage him to come back. I think it will give him the reassurance that is necessary to come back. When you put it together with his conversations today with Prime Minister Rabin and the conversation that'll be ongoing about security in the West Bank area.

MR. LEHRER: Are there specific things that Yasser Arafat wants from Prime Minister Rabin on a security basis before he will go to the table?

SEC. CHRISTOPHER: There are a number of things in play here. You know, Prime Minister Rabin was very forthright when he was here in saying we understand the security needs of the Palestinians, so there are a number of things that are under discussion there, the police being one aspect of it.

MR. LEHRER: Bringing police into Hebron, is that right?

SEC. CHRISTOPHER: That's right, and perhaps --

MR. LEHRER: Palestinian police into Hebron.

SEC. CHRISTOPHER: Yes. Perhaps down the road a way a possibility of an international presence. I don't want to pre-empt the discussions that will go on between the parties. Those will be intensive discussions, but I have really quite high hopes that they'll be able to find a basis for returning to peace talks, themselves, as well as the other three parties.

MR. LEHRER: One of the things that Prime Minister Rabin said when he was in Washington -- he was in Washington earlier this week, of course -- that he talks to Arafat quite a bit on the phone, is that right?

SEC. CHRISTOPHER: Yes, they've talked two or three times this week.

MR. LEHRER: And just this week they talked two or three times?

SEC. CHRISTOPHER: Yes, sir.

MR. LEHRER: Is --

SEC. CHRISTOPHER: That's a good sign. It's a good sign that they've worked out an ability to talk on the telephone. Those -- for such a long time -- sworn enemies now have begun a dialogue.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. There's some people that have suggested that this terrible tragedy in Hebron may, in fact, be an impetus to speed things along, rather than to slow things down in the long run, because it's made everybody aware on all sides for the need for there to be a lasting peace, is that -- do you buy that?

SEC. CHRISTOPHER: Jim, it's a terrible price to pay, but once that happens, you try to use it as a catalyst to remind people to look. This is the kind of thing that's happening in the territories. We need to move toward a more rational system. We need to move toward an implementation of Declaration of Principles so it doesn't happen again.

MR. LEHRER: And has that been emphasized in the conversation?

SEC. CHRISTOPHER: Over and over again, over and over again.

MR. LEHRER: That if you want to stop more incidents like this, then you have to have peace.

SEC. CHRISTOPHER: It's a long road, but you have to start down that path. You have to get a system where the Palestinians will actually be in charge of their own lives there administering many, many aspects of government in the West Bank. That's the long-term promise, and we want to get there as soon as possible.

MR. LEHRER: Now, talk about a path, the other big announcement today was the confederation between the Bosnian Muslims and Croatia. And a lot of people, that only represents 30 percent or so of the territory of Bosnia, and the Serbs are not involved, so how meaningful is this, Mr. Secretary, what happened today?

SEC. CHRISTOPHER: It's a very important step, Jim. It's a very important building block. If you take together the territory that the Bosnians were apparently offered at Geneva, about 32 or 33 percent, add that to the 17 percent that the Croatians had, you get an entity that's a much more viable entity. It's up around 51 percent or so. That's what might be involved here. It also solves a number of the problems, such as access to the sea for the Muslims. It also presents the opportunity --

MR. LEHRER: As soon as they get that with Croatia.

SEC. CHRISTOPHER: They get that with Croatia. So it's been a good day for peace in Washington, a very important step, a long ways to go, because until you bring in the Bosnian Serbs, of course, you have no assurance of peace, but --

MR. LEHRER: Where does that stand, Mr. Secretary?

SEC. CHRISTOPHER: Well, I think that's the next step. Now that the Muslims and the Croatians have worked out their problems -- and you know they've been fighting very intensively so, in effect, you'll stop a war when they reach the agreement they've reached. Now I think we'll find out what their reasonable requirements are and discussions will begin with the Serbs.

MR. LEHRER: There are no discussions underway now?

SEC. CHRISTOPHER: Well, there are constant discussions back and forth. For example, there were discussions between the Serbs and the Bosnians about opening the roads into Sarajevo that just culminated this morning in a decision to open some of the roads in Sarajevo. There's lots going on in Bosnia right now, and much of it is very promising. The cease-fire is holding in Sarajevo. It appears that we'll be able to land planes in Tuzla. On the other hand, there are other areas where the fighting continues, so there is promise there, but lots of work to be done.

MR. LEHRER: Is -- what's the U.S. involvement at this point in the diplomatic side?

SEC. CHRISTOPHER: Well, about a month ago, I guess going back to about the 1st of February, the United States decided to take a very strong lead in the diplomatic front. Actually, the Europeans looked to us and said we don't think you can -- we don't think this problem will be solved without your intervention, so we began this process, and the first step we took was a somewhat audacious one of saying, why didn't we try to bring together first the Croatians and the Muslims to see if we can't have that, that part of the war come to an end and use that as a building block. Now, I think we've crossed that threshold. The next step is for us to go to the, go to the Serbs. It was very interesting today, Jim, you know, the deputy foreign minister of Russia, Vitaly Churkin, was present at our meeting. I had a separate meeting with him. And we'll be working closely with him trying to bring the Serbs to the point where they're willing either to join this confederation or find some other way to bring peace to Bosnia. I think that's one of those areas where we can work in partnership with the Russians as well as the Europe union.

MR. LEHRER: Let's go on now to China, the human rights dispute and your recent trip there. That trip has been widely criticized, as you know. Washington Post Columnist Charles Krauthamer was the latest to weigh in this morning. He called it a "debacle." Do you see it that way?

SEC. CHRISTOPHER: Not at all. You know, I was there representing the United States, carrying out the President's policy, which is widely supported in Congress, and we needed to let the Chinese know what they needed to do in order to have a renewal of most favored nations treatment. I think the trip was essential. As I said on Capitol Hill this week, I think it would have been a grave error to cancel it. The Chinese now know what they need to do. We laid down strong markers, I didn't flinch, and I think it was a desirable trip.

MR. LEHRER: Well, what do you say to the Krauthamers of this world who say that the leaders of China essentially just treated you with contempt? They arrested dissidents while you were on your way there. A couple even after you got there, they made absolutely no, no conciliatory statements while you were there or afterward?

SEC. CHRISTOPHER: Jim, look, I'm very proud to be representing the United States in that kind of a situation. We're not perfect. We're work in progress and probably always will be, but at least we have a system where change can come about. You know, people can write, and they can organize. They can conduct campaigns. They can do anything they want in order to try to change the government in a peaceful way. It's a pretty sad commentary on China, a country of a billion people, that they have to detain 15 people, and why, because they want to express their views, because they want to write an article. So I think that we're billing the right thing there. I think that we made some progress first in letting them know what it is they need to do, but in the last meeting, in the last of the three meetings it did begin to show some progress. It's kind of an interesting thing, Jim. You know, the Chinese say we won't talk to you about human rights, now let's talk about it. And so I think we made more progress than the Charles Krauthamers of the world would acknowledge.

MR. LEHRER: But what about this additional point, Mr. Secretary, that all the progress in the world, the fact of the matter is, if you and the President go ahead and withdraw Most Favored Nation status from China, that it would be a terrific disaster not only for China but for the United States and the world, it would be actually an act of instability rather than stability?

SEC. CHRISTOPHER: Well, we have most favored nation treatment for a number of countries, but a number of countries we don't have that kind of treatment for. You know, China's got a larger stake in that -- in this than we do. They have a $20 billion trade surplus with us. So I think they're going to stop and think before they endanger that as well. There's about two and a half months to go before that decision is made. What we've asked the Chinese to do is to not to change their system, not to transfer on overnight, but to make progress in seven narrow discreet areas. We think that's entirely doable.

MR. LEHRER: But what do you say when they look at you straight in the eye and say, Mr. Secretary, this is none of your business, this is our -- you go run your country, we'll run our country and let's trade?

SEC. CHRISTOPHER: Of course it's some of our business. What we're asking him to do is to follow the basic human rights recognize in the United Nations declaration. There they say they really adhere to it. We're asking them to live up to their adherence to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. You know, what happens in other countries is our business to that extent, at least. We're entitled to urge them to really live up to their own commitments.

MR. LEHRER: Is it your theory, Mr. Secretary, that in the final analysis that they will, in fact, blink, that the trade status of the United States is more important than what they're doing in human rights in China, they will, in fact, change their systems?

SEC. CHRISTOPHER: I can't tell you that, but we're going to put all the pressure we can on them. We've told them now. It's clear to them what they need to do, and I think they understand the mixed messages they may have been receiving in the past are not the policy of this administration, and I hope that they will come into compliance. Now they have -- as I say -- made progress on some of the conditions.

MR. LEHRER: Is there a -- is there a far back position? I mean, is there a way to lift just part of the most favored trade status and not go the whole way and not drop the big bomb?

SEC. CHRISTOPHER: That's a very difficult technical question, but, yes, it's not impossible. And there are some areas that one would like to exclude, if you could, and there are some things you would like to hit harder, for example, the state-owned enterprises, you might be willing to hit those somewhat harder than you would say Hong Kong.

MR. LEHRER: But you don't want to give away your whole position now, I guess.

SEC. CHRISTOPHER: I certainly don't.

MR. LEHRER: Right. Another thing, of course, in that part of the world is North Korea. The head of the CIA said publicly yesterday that now the CIA now knows for a fact that North Korea is developing two ballistic missiles that are capable of hitting their, their neighbors in a very serious way. That is at an impasse, and what is going to happen there? How are you going to solve that, Mr. Secretary?

SEC. CHRISTOPHER: Well, it's another serious problem. Yes, there is an impasse tonight, but the choice is North Korea's. You know, they can comply with the inspections. They can enter into talks with South Korea and really join the family of nations in which case there's a real possibility. We'll be glad to have a third round of talks and welcome them into a more normal relationship. On the other hand, if they want to go the other way, clearly, the International Atomic Energy Agency will refer the matter back to the United Nations, and the question will have to be what kind of sanctions. It's really up to North Korea.

MR. LEHRER: Most people, the average American, would probably want to know is it getting any better, or is it getting any worse, this relationship -- I mean, this impasse with North Korea? Is there any sign of progress in that, or is it -- all the signs that we read, at least, are it's getting worse, not better.

SEC. CHRISTOPHER: Well, Jim, we've come through a number of impasses frustratingly, but, nevertheless, the reality is that at the very last minute they've broken the impasse. For example, they agreed to the inspections at the last minute. And now they have not completed the inspections. So I would say we have been in kind of a status quo ever since they said they were going to withdraw from the NPT. We've been trying to get them back into the Nonproliferation Treaty, that is. I would say that right now we're at a rather even keel but an impasse, and unless that impasse is broken, clearly the United States, or not just the United States but the other nations in the region, and the major powers are going to have to address this at the United Nations.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Secretary, we've gone just through four major areas here. Did you anticipate that there was going to be this kind of crisis to crisis to crisis when you took this job?

SEC. CHRISTOPHER: No. I don't suppose I ever thought it would be quite this much happening on a single day, Jim, but it's a very interesting life. It's a challenging life.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Secretary, thank you very much.

SEC. CHRISTOPHER: Thank you very much.

MR. MacNeil: Still to come on the NewsHour tonight, Shields and Gigot, and guidelines for health care. FOCUS - POLITICAL WRAP

MR. MacNeil: Now it's time for the debut of the NewsHour's new political analysis team. Since David Gergen went to the White House ten months ago, our regular syndicated columnist, Mark Shields, has had many different Friday night partners. One frequent guest has been Wall Street Journal columnist Paul Gigot. Tonight we'd like formally to welcome Paul to the NewsHour, and we take great pleasure in announcing our new team of Shields and Gigot. Oh, Paul, there's just one little initiation formality. If you would just raise your right hand and say after me, "I will not join the Clinton administration until the end of this term."

MR. GIGOT: I don't think any calls are going to be forthcoming.

MR. MacNeil: I see. "I will not leave Mark Shields without a Friday night date." Mr. Shields, is the Senate vote late last night, ninety-eight to nothing, for Whitewater hearings, is that a big victory for the Republicans and for Robert Dole?

MR. SHIELDS: Well, certainly that was the position that the Republican leader endorsed, Robin, and the, the inevitability of hearings had, had become apparent, and I think that accounted for the unanimous vote in the Senate.

MR. MacNeil: How do you see it, Paul? Is it a big blow for the Clintons, or is it not?

MR. GIGOT: I don't think it's a big blow for them, because I think they saw it coming. It was really inevitable. The last thing the Democratic Senators wanted to have to vote for was to keep some of this off the public air waves and keep Congress from looking into it. And it just didn't want to have a vote that Republicans could pin on them in November and say, look, this is a vote for, for secrecy. And so when the Republicans tried to force a vote, the Democrats tried to go along.

MR. MacNeil: But as late as, I think, yesterday afternoon we had George Mitchell on our program last night saying very vociferously on the Senate floor that the Republican call was just partisan politics and hearings were unnecessary and so on. So when did it become inevitable, Mark?

MR. SHIELDS: When Bob Dole was forcing the vote, Sen. Mitchell and Sen. Dole were meeting on it, and I think Sen. Mitchell wanted to get as good a deal as he could in terms of the timing of the hearings, and just exactly what might, how they might take place. I think the restiveness and exactly what Paul said within his own ranks, the charge of cover-up -- this is really an incident I think at this point of the coverage it's had, most Americans, including this one, would have great difficulty describing exactly what the charges are. The charge of cover-up and unwillingness to examine it and to keep these things in the back room is something that's clearly understood. The antiseptic of open hearings is something that has enormous appeal to Americans and for good reason, and has great political advantage to the party that trumpet it against the party that's against it.

MR. MacNeil: Paul, Sen. Cohen, the Republican Senator, said he understood the resolution to mean that hearings would be near-term on the stuff that's happened in Washington.

MR. GIGOT: Right.

MR. MacNeil: But on the stuff that's happened in Arkansas on a much longer-term basis. Now could that conceivably mean nothing about the Arkansas stuff, the real gist of Whitewater, would happen until after the mid-term elections, is that how long-term they mean?

MR. GIGOT: I think that if George Mitchell gets his way, that's what he would like to see happen. They'd like to see as much of this out of the way early, and then by the summer let's not deal with this, let's put it off until after the elections. I don't know if they're going to be able to do that. It would depend on what come out in the press, if there's any new revelations that will add to the pressure for hearings. And the timing of the original hearings aren't really set yet. This is something that has to be worked out. So I think there's still a lot to be said for the Democrats trying to put, get it over early, because by July or August, that's very close to November.

MR. MacNeil: Now, Mark, there are some hearings scheduled next week in the House Banking Committee. Describe the strange goings on there. You have the Democratic chairman of the committee, Mr. Gonzalez, telling witnesses who've been called that they don't have to answer questions that the Republicans, led by Jim Leach, want to ask them. I mean, has there ever been anything quite like this before?

MR. SHIELDS: Well, no, there really hasn't, Robin, but I think the key meetings will take place before that, and the leadership of the House, both the Democrats and the Republicans, will meet very early next week to decide exactly what the ground rules are going to be. I think that the best bet is that there will be hearings. The hearings will be held in the House Banking Committee which is chaired by Mr. Gonzalez and which Mr. Leach of Iowa is the ranking Republican, and one of the reasons [a] it avoids having a special committee which there's very little pressure for in the House, and [b], the Democrats on that committee, there's some pretty talented people that they feel could represent the White House's interests well. But I -- just in answer to the question you put to Paul, I think that what the Democrats are hoping for is that if Mr. Fiske, the special counsel, reports back later this spring and says, I've investigated the meetings that were held in Washington, the RTC, the White House meetings, the subpoenas, and all the rest of it, that that will take a considerable amount of the steam out. Now I do not disagree with Paul at all if there's a blockbuster that hits between now and then about something that transpired in Arkansas, there's tapes or whatever else, then all bets are off. But I think that's where in the near-term, that's where the pressure is for the hearings, and because that's the most logical place for congressional oversight is on the RTC and the White House and what went on.

MR. MacNeil: I'd like to know what you both feel, being there in Washington. Has this gained momentum, this so-called scandal or story, has it gained momentum this week, Paul?

MR. GIGOT: Well, I think it gained some momentum earlier in the week when Webster Hubbell, the President's good friend and the No. 3 person at the Justice Department, when he resigned. It gained a little bit more elevation later when there was some more subpoenas issued, one to George Stephanopoulos, a ranking aide, and politically, in general, and Mark is absolutely right, the arcane details of some of this are hard to understand and don't penetrate the public. But when you start throwing around subpoenas and you start talking grand juries, that really hits. And that has resonated a lot. And I think that has made it a bigger issue throughout the country.

MR. MacNeil: Let's turn to things that are easy to understand, Mark. What does the Rostenkowski victory in Chicago do for President Clinton?

MR. SHIELDS: I think the Rostenkowski victory is the best news that President Bill Clinton has had in weeks. This has been a town lately where a fellow could make a pretty good living just selling change of address cards to ex-Clinton appointees. And it's -- the bad news has filled the papers of departing friends and resigning aides, and all the rest of it. But I think what he had was [a] Bill Clinton went into Illinois, he went in at a time when Dan Rostenkowski looked to be an extremist. This is a fellow who was - - was elected in 1958 when Ike and Mamie were in the White House, who had a 30 percent favorable rating in his own district, according to the Chicago Tribune poll. So he was in big trouble. He had a three point lead with 30 percent undecided. The rule of thumb in politics is any incumbent in that shape is -- you might as well count him out and start working on his concession speech. Bill Clinton went in, not only helped him, I think, helped him -- Rostenkowski's convinced of that -- but showed a sense of loyalty which had been missing in early 1993, particularly on the grazing fee and the BTU votes in the Congress where the President seemed to back off, did back off, faded, folded, however you want to put it. This time he did. It not only showed a certain sense of loyalty. It showed, I think, that he helped Dan Rostenkowski. That helps him on Capitol Hill, that Bill Clinton's a guy that when you're in trouble, you've stuck with him, as Dan Rostenkowski had, then he'll, he'll show up for you. And I think that's a good message.

MR. MacNeil: Do you think it's important, Paul?

MR. GIGOT: It is. It is. It's more important, I think, inside Washington, inside the Ways & Means Committee, which is going to be critical to health care. I mean, Dan Rostenkowski is the President's sherpa. He's going to guide him through, and if he lost that guide, it was going to be big trouble. I think it means less though in a general political sense, because, after all, Chicago is one of the most Democratic cities in the nation, and you could rally the troops, you could rally the Democratic troops, the voters by "we deliver them," the old pork barrel politics, and Rosti was posing there with a helicopter at one stage which he had shipped in and even the Republican governor, Jim Edgar, came in and said, Dan Rostenkowski delivers for Illinois. So that's one city, one place in the country where that kind of politics can still work. It doesn't translate generally though.

MR. SHIELDS: Robin, just one thing, with Dan Rostenkowski, health care reform is going to be difficult. Without him as chairman of the Ways & Means Committee I think it would have been impossible.

MR. MacNeil: Paul, one president put his arm around one candidate. Another president has conspicuously taken his support away, and that is Ronald Reagan. Describe what Ronald Reagan's just done to Oliver North in the Virginia primary.

MR. GIGOT: Well, Robin, it's the revenge of the gipper. Ronald Reagan always lived by what he called the 11th Commandment, "Thou shalt never speak ill of another Republican." And he always abided by that. I think he's made an exception. He's decided in that case of Oliver North in Virginia he was going to speak up, and he sent a letter, in fact, saying Oliver North amazingly isn't telling the truth about me. And when you have the core -- regarding Iran-Contra -- and when you have the core of Ollie North's support being conservative Republicans and Ronald Reagan speaks ill of Ollie North. It's going to hurt him, and it gives a chance for his opponent, Jim Miller, that a lot of people didn't think he had before.

MR. MacNeil: Is it fatal for Oliver North, Mark?

MR. SHIELDS: I don't think so. Oliver North has spent the last three years of his life party building among Republicans in Virginia. Ten of the Senate candidates in this past November Senate races were Republicans recruited personally by Oliver North. He's a fellow who's gone to fund-raising dinners everywhere. He has done, invested the time, effort, and energy in building of the Virginia Republican Party, the kind that Richard Nixon did in this country between 1966 and 1968. It was not helpful, make no mistake about that, and Oliver North would prefer not to have had that letter, but I would not write him off this evening.

MR. MacNeil: The specific thing that President Reagan said was that he had not ordered North -- what he objected to was North's claim that Reagan had ordered North to, to dissemble to Congress, am I right about that?

MR. SHIELDS: That's right. I mean, this is Ronald Reagan who had to be introduced to a secretary of Housing & Urban Development, Sam Pierce, at one cabinet social event, introduced himself, said, hello, Mr. Mayor, said the President, I mean, a man not given to detail. Whatever one says about the gipper, detail was not his strong suit, and we're supposed to believe he was sitting there musing through his meetings and said, gee, this fellow North wasn't in that often. There are a lot of people around Ronald Reagan who feel that Oliver North and his story that he's told in his book and his story that he tells on the campaign trail tarnish the legacy of Ronald Reagan. Foremost among them is Mrs. Reagan who has burned up the wires, according to Republicans, to make sure that this letter got out because she doesn't want to see Ronald Reagan's legacy tarnished, in her judgment, by the election of somebody who has charged that the President, himself, did know about it.

MR. MacNeil: Well, Mark and Paul, we have to end the first night there. Thank you very much, both of you. See you next week. FINALLY - WHEN LIFE'S FUTILE

MR. LEHRER: Finally tonight, a personal story about health care, Washington's favorite issue at the moment. It's a story from Denver about a Colorado family and a group of doctors, nurses, and hospitals trying to reform the way extraordinary health care is delivered. The family invited us to report on their story. Tom Bearden reports.

MR. BEARDEN: Gathered in a Denver hospital room, the Sanchez family decided it was time to allow their brother to die. They told the staff to disconnect Eric Sanchez from the machines that had kept him alive for a week. His sister, Terri, made the final decision.

TERRI SANCHEZ: At first, I said absolutely not, till today. It's very hard for me. I walked the floors, believe it or not. I walked the floors because this is my baby brother here, and it's hard to let got of someone you love, and I loved him the best.

[FAMILY SINGING "AMEN" AROUND HOSPITAL BED]

MR. BEARDEN: Doctors said death was inevitable for the 34-year- old man. He was HIV positive, he was comatose, he had pneumonia, and was suffering from a massive infection. But because his heart was still strong, doctors had been able to keep Sanchez alive with the help of a ventilator, a machine which did the breathing for him. Before life support machines were removed, the Sanchezes looked to the doctors for confirmation they were making the right decision for themselves and for their brother.

DOCTOR: He is basically sedated right now, so he feels nothing. And I don't anticipate it will take very long for him to, you know, for his vital signs to pass away. That's what we figure.

TERRI SANCHEZ: So we're talking what, seconds?

DOCTOR: Oh, minutes.

BROTHER OF ERIC SANCHEZ: I don't believe that we're playing God. And I feel like we've done everything.

DOCTOR: We actually could have kept him alive a lot longer, but the problem is, is that really worth it, is that worth keeping him going, because we create monsters that way. And that's not good for families either. It strings them on. It takes energy out of them, and it puts them in a much more compromised position after a while.

MR. BEARDEN: Doctors say Eric Sanchez represented a classic case of futile care, a situation that requires extraordinary medical intervention to sustain life but virtually without hope of recovery. Some doctors say putting patients like Sanchez on life support in the first place can be cruel and unethical. They say continuing such are is inhumane. That's the reasons physicians at Presbyterian-St. Luke's have joined with 13 other hospitals in the Denver area in an effort to write guidelines to limit the amount of care given in futile cases. Dr. Russell Simpson treated Eric Sanchez.

DR. RUSSELL SIMPSON: I think it's only humanitarian to people to be able to have these guidelines in place, and I think everybody involved, from the nurses to the physicians, it takes its toll just on emotion, watching someone go through this.

MR. BEARDEN: If the Denver hospitals adopt a set of mutually agreed upon guidelines, it will be the first time anywhere in America that the medical profession has tried to answer a disturbing question. How much health care is too much? How much is too much for the patient, the family, the care givers? How much is too much for society, which must often bear the burden of the extremely high costs? The cost of keeping Eric Sanchez alive was $12,800 a day. Because he was on Medicaid, taxpayers picked up the bill. To the families, cost is the least of their concern.

TERRI SANCHEZ: You don't think about that when you want to save your brother's life. You didn't think about the money. You think about your brother. What's money? What's money? You think about your brother.

MR. BEARDEN: But to Donald Murphy, costs to society as a whole have to be considered. Murphy, a geriatric physician also at Presbyterian-St. Luke Hospital, has led the charge for guidelines.

DR. DONALD MURPHY: There's really four different studies that report 100 percentmortality in varying numbers of patients.

MR. BEARDEN: He and medical professionals from across the city have held frequent meetings for the last nine months trying to reach a consensus. Murphy says the Denver debate strikes at the heart of the national debate over health care reform.

DR. DONALD MURPHY: This was an issue, the whole question about futile care or inappropriate care, five years ago. It was an issue ten years ago. But it didn't have the urgency it has today. The reason it has the urgency today is because of health care reform. A lot of us feel that if we're really going to have a just health care system, we're going to have to set some boundaries on care at the margins. If we want to bring everyone into the fold and give fair care to everyone, we're going to have to set some limits where care is very marginal.

DR. DONALD MURPHY: [talking to patient] Hello, Mr. DeBaca. Good to see you.

MR. BEARDEN: Proponents say the guidelines will target care at the end of life. According to the Federal Health Care Financing Administration, 28 percent of the nation's total Medicare costs are run up in the last 12 months of a person's life.

DR. DONALD MURPHY: [talking to patient] What I'd like to do, Mr. DeBaca, is take about five or ten minutes so that we can talk about something that I like to discuss with all the seniors we take care of, all right? We call it advanced directives.

MR. BEARDEN: Lacking the kind of guidance the guidelines are designed to give, in the past, doctors have often tried to get direction from their patients before they reach a medical crisis.

DR. DONALD MURPHY: [talking to patient] You're 86 now, right?

MR. DeBACA: [patient] Yes.

DR. DONALD MURPHY: [talking to patient] And otherwise in pretty good health. I want to ask you a very tough question. The question is: If your heart stops or you stop breathing for whatever reason, would you want CPR for yourself?

DR. DeBACA: [patient] Why, certainly. Sure I would.

DR. DONALD MURPHY: [talking to patient] You would? Okay.

MR. BEARDEN: Murphy says that's usually the case -- at first. But once he tells them there may be only a slim chance of recovery, Murphy says few patients want to be revived by extraordinary means.

DR. DONALD MURPHY: [talking to patient] I want to make sure that that's really what you would want. We're talking about ending up in a situation where you would not recognize Mrs. DeBaca, you would not recognize any family members. You may be uncomfortable, and you're unable to verbalize that, and you could end up like that for several years. It happens to people.

MR. BEARDEN: The Denver futile care discussion also raises questions about subjecting the elderly to a number of medical procedures. For example, should an 85-year-old have a coronary bypass operation? Should a severely demented Alzheimer's patient receive cataract surgery? Medical ethicist Dr. Fred Abrams and nursing home director Dr. Robert McCartney say an examination of such procedures is needed.

DR. ROBERT McCARTNEY: We find ourselves in that awkward situation where a lot of decisions are being made that is getting us very deep into high-tech treatment, and people are unable to make decisions in a -- quickly -- or sometimes the right person isn't there. Guidelines would really facilitate us, and I think actually empower doctors to do what we should do but feel helpless without somebody to give us the right consent and direction.

MR. BEARDEN: Do these guidelines in any sense reduce the patient's autonomy in deciding their own fate, or their family's autonomy?

DR. FRED ABRAMS: In a sense, yes, they will. You know, the trend over the last two decades has been increasing the patient's own autonomy. This is a good step forward, but oftentimes this autonomy has gone to the point where people are unrealistic about it. They expect miracles from the medical profession. The medical profession knows we really don't have any miracles, and they are waiting for the one miraculous case. It's not going to happen.

MR. BEARDEN: Miraculous advances in technology can be found in neonatal intensive care units across the country. Babies born with extremely low birth weights are now nursed back to health with the help of sophisticated machinery. But not all those babies who are kept alive can be nursed back to health. Peter Hulac, a neonatologist for Kaiser Permanente, says new procedures for such children have led to an increasing number of infant futile care cases.

DR. PETER HULAC: Technology is so much different that we have the ability now in this decade to maintain blood pressure and heart rate and even artificial breathing for a very long period of time.

MR. BEARDEN: In both the very young and the very old, guidelines would also address another concern for doctors, legal liability. Without community-wide standards, doctors have long felt at risk of lawsuits every time they resist providing care they believe is futile. Attorney Susan Fox Buchanan.

SUSAN FOX BUCHANAN: Each provider is on the firing line every time he or she makes a decision, for example, not to use advanced life support or tube feeding or ventilators for a permanently unconscious patient.

MR. BEARDEN: Fox Buchanan thinks the guidelines will provide firmer footing.

SUSAN FOX BUCHANAN: In classic malpractice cases now whether the physician deviated from the acceptable standard of care is based on what the community standards of care are. In formulating the guidelines here, we're attempting to provide that benchmark so that a physician treating a permanently unconscious patient would have some support, some measurement by which the decision could be compared.

MR. BEARDEN: But that legal benchmark deeply worries critics like attorney Allison Page Landry. Landry represents the disabled in Virginia. She says guidelines risk giving doctors the awesome power of deciding whose life is worth living.

ALLISON PAGE LANDRY: Not all decisions made by health care providers are medical decisions. To the extent that a physician is uniquely qualified to opine as to whether a particular drug is going to cure or ameliorate an infection, that is essentially a medical decision to which we can safely defer, however, there are other types of decisions, such as whether or not someone's life is worth preserving, or whether someone's life is worth sustaining mechanically or otherwise that are really beyond the expertise of physicians to make. These are essentially moral questions, and they are best left to the patient and if the patient is incompetent to the patient's appropriate surrogate, their parent or family.

UNIDENTIFIED HOSPITAL PERSON: [In Eric Sanchez's Hospital Room] The machine will go off, and this will be his chance where he can breathe or not.

MR. BEARDEN: Even with futile care guidelines in place in the future, proponents say decisions in each case would still be made by families, doctors, and hospitals on an individual basis. And they think the outcome would still be a joint decision, like the one the Sanchez family made on a wintry evening in February. They considered the advice of the doctors, their clergymen, andtheir own best judgment and decided to take their brother off life support. The flow of oxygen was stopped, the ventilator turned off, and Eric Sanchez stopped breathing?

FAMILY MEMBER: We love you, Eric.

OTHER FAMILY MEMBER: We love you, Eric. God be with you, Eric. See the light. See the light. RECAP

MR. MacNeil: Again, the main stories of this Friday, Syria, Jordan, and Lebanon agreed to resume bilateral talks with Israel. The action followed a U.N. Security Council vote condemning the Hebron mosque massacre, and Muslim and Croat leaders signed an agreement creating a confederation of their territory in Bosnia. Good night, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Robin. We'll see you Monday night with a Newsmaker interview with CIA director James Woolsey. Have a nice weekend. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you, and good night.